Forum rules
If you find a topic of interest and want to continue the discussion then start a new topic under The Hearthfire with a similar name and add a link back to the topic you want to continue.
To copy a link just copy the url on the top left of your browser and then put in your post, highlight it and press the url button.

This is my first and favourite deck. The style is simple, beautiful, and has an interesting mix of medieval references and Asian aesthetics: http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/magical-forest/
I find that animals are more appealing than humans on a tarot deck, and I appreciate the more gender-neutral presentation. This deck works very well for my own readings.

My problem now is that I've ordered the druidcraft tarot (I received it a couple of weeks ago) and so far have trouble connecting with it. It is a beautiful deck but not a style I easily identify with. I've been looking at the cards and arranging them to try and get a feel for it but it's been harder than expected. Maybe it goes too far into New Age aesthetics for my personal taste

I still hope that it will complement the two others in some way and find its own "niche". Has anyone else had a similar experience? Any advice?

Hedge-bandit, song-bomb, dart-beak, the wren
hops in the thicket, flirt-eye; shy, brave,
grubbing, winter's scamp, but more than itself–
ten requisite grams of the world's weight.

Hello Kima,
I am afraid I can't help as I feel with Tarot decks it either inspires you or it doesn't
I do love the Druidcraft tarot and work a lot with it (just for me)...
I checked the tarot decks you have posted and "checked" my own responses to them just by curiosity...(I only "liked"the Paulina deck)

Have you seen this one which is not out yet, I do believe that it will have more animals than normal:

Did you also buy the book that comes with the DruidCraft tarot?
It gives a very good insight into the druidcraft 'tradition' and makes the cards come alive that way. The cards tell a lot of different stories, if you can find them.
In fact, if you go really deep into the DruidCraft Tarot, you probably don't need the obod course anymore ;-).

The only other tarot I have is the decamerone, but I doubt that many people use that one .

@ D'Arzhur
Of course it's very personal. Do you have several decks as well? I checked Wildwood and it looks quite nice, but too realistic for my taste. What I love in the Magical Forest is that it pictures animals instead of humans, but in a personified way, so that it's easy to identify with the characters (well, for me!).

@ Nico
I have the book and have started reading it. I'd like to have some time to study the cardsevery day as I read the explanations but am very busy at the moment. I don't want to be rushing through the explanations. Do you use the cards as a way to study druidry then?
I didnt know that deck

Hedge-bandit, song-bomb, dart-beak, the wren
hops in the thicket, flirt-eye; shy, brave,
grubbing, winter's scamp, but more than itself–
ten requisite grams of the world's weight.

I mainly used them for divination (not predicting the future, but giving me insights in certain subjects). But because they are so linked to druidry (or more specifically to druidcraft, the magical/witchcraft side of druidry) the 'language' they 'speak' is very druidic. Both in its imagery and meaning. Not just of the cards themselves, but also the way that different cards interact through the underlying stories they depict.

I don't really use them to study druidry, I've completed the obod training which is enough study for me for now. But they are a pleasant visual reminder of the dynamics of druidry.

Kima wrote:I didnt know that deck

I've been looking for it for years, but I didn't think that I would actually find it because of its very explicit nature. But to my pleasant surprise my wife found it in Glastonbury, of all places. But to be honest, it doesn't really work well as a divination tool, it distracts a bit

I found that once I cut all the borders (and I mean ALL the borders, including card names, etc.), I liked the DruidCraft much more. For one thing, it is too big. I wouldn't mind the size if it was used up in image, but it just has too much space allocated to borders.

One of the reasons I like it better is that as an intuitive deck, it is amazing. Getting rid of the titles got rid of the distraction of trying to fit the images into a loose RW structure that didn't really fit. One of the the problems is that it was kind of RW, but then went off a bit on its own, and that just didn't do it for me. (RW _ Rider-Waite)

As for the Tarot of the Magical Forest? I can't stand the eyes on the animals. *shudder* They are just staring, wide-eyed, as if they had all just smoked crack or something. Gives me the willies.

I'm usually not the collecting type, but I think that this one goes on my wishlist.
I don't want to fuel spiritual consumerism by buying it, so I guess I will just have to conjure it up some way. (hint: my birthday is with beltane ).

Kima wrote:@ D'Arzhur
Of course it's very personal. Do you have several decks as well? I checked Wildwood and it looks quite nice, but too realistic for my taste. What I love in the Magical Forest is that it pictures animals instead of humans, but in a personified way, so that it's easy to identify with the characters (well, for me!).

The Druidcraft Tarot is my only Tarot so far... I am at the end of the Ovate grade so it has been with me for a while and it teaches a lot about Druidry at different levels.
I have a set of the Marseille Tarot but I have not work with it yet. I bought it long ago when I was missing home (I grew up in Toulon next to Marseille)... One of this day I will be looking into it though because I got the Tarot book from Jodorowski (he works with the Tarot de marseille) and that is one interesting fellow!

Other than that I believe I am ready to get my second set : the wildwood tarot because I like Will's interpretations and the use of more shamanistics references

I'm usually not the collecting type, but I think that this one goes on my wishlist.
I don't want to fuel spiritual consumerism by buying it, so I guess I will just have to conjure it up some way. (hint: my birthday is with beltane ).

Yes this might well become my second tarot set! I believe it will mix and match well with the Druidcraft Tarot... I believe the court cards are represented by animals....

I'm usually not the collecting type, but I think that this one goes on my wishlist.
I don't want to fuel spiritual consumerism by buying it, so I guess I will just have to conjure it up some way. (hint: my birthday is with beltane ).

Yes this might well become my second tarot set! I believe it will mix and match well with the Druidcraft Tarot... I believe the court cards are represented by animals....

blodyn wrote:
As for the Tarot of the Magical Forest? I can't stand the eyes on the animals. *shudder* They are just staring, wide-eyed, as if they had all just smoked crack or something. Gives me the willies.

Yes, they are a little spooky I Iike their magic mushroom look.

Hedge-bandit, song-bomb, dart-beak, the wren
hops in the thicket, flirt-eye; shy, brave,
grubbing, winter's scamp, but more than itself–
ten requisite grams of the world's weight.

Kima wrote:
My problem now is that I've ordered the druidcraft tarot (I received it a couple of weeks ago) and so far have trouble connecting with it. It is a beautiful deck but not a style I easily identify with. I've been looking at the cards and arranging them to try and get a feel for it but it's been harder than expected. Maybe it goes too far into New Age aesthetics for my personal taste

Well, it's been months and I still cannot relate to the Druidcraft. I've just bought Shadowscapes instead, which complements my other two decks really well. If anyone's interested in getting the Druidcraft tarot, I've put it up at the marketplace: http://druidry.org/board/dhp/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=39106
Get in touch with me if you're interested!

Hedge-bandit, song-bomb, dart-beak, the wren
hops in the thicket, flirt-eye; shy, brave,
grubbing, winter's scamp, but more than itself–
ten requisite grams of the world's weight.